Category Archives: Oil stabilization

Bakken Crude, DOT-111, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Oil Industry, Oil stabilization

North Dakota perspective on Bakken: ‘Getting it right’

From The Bismarck Tribune, Bakken Breakout
[An interesting analysis of the future of Bakken crude extraction from the perspective of an apparent oil industry advocate.  They’re listening!  – RS]

Getting it right

By Brian Kroshus, Publisher, September 17, 2014

Domestic oil production levels in the United States continue to rise – largely the result of the boom in shale oil drilling across the country. Notable plays like the Bakken shale in North Dakota and Permian and Eagle Ford shale in Texas, have been leading the way with more promising formations in different geographies, targeted for exploration and drilling in the years ahead.

Plays like the Bakken, Permian and Eagle Ford were actually in decline until only recently, having peaked decades ago when conventional, vertical wells were the only economically viable means of extracting crude. Now, those same plays are part of a drilling renaissance in key parts of the country. Geologists have known for years that more oil was present, trapped in source stone within the formations, but developing technology to profitably extract shale oil hasn’t come easy.

Today, oil production in the United States is surging thanks to advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques. Drillers are not only better understanding the geology of shale formations, but technology necessary to economically drill and produce oil. Increasingly, they’re becoming more efficient. Still, only a small percentage resource is making its way to the surface presently. Undoubtedly, more will continue to be learned in the years ahead, ultimately leading to higher extraction percentage and proven reserves.

From an energy independence standpoint, the outlook for the United States is certainly promising. In October 2013, for the first time in nearly two decades, the United States produced more oil than it imported. Predictably, while there are those including the current administration attempting to take partial credit, rising output has been the result of drilling on state and private lands. On federal lands, production has actually declined during Pres. Barack Obama’s time in office according to the American Petroleum Institute.

Despite declines on federal ground, experts still predict that the United States could be fully energy independent by the end of this decade. According the EIA, U.S. oil production will rise to 11.6 million barrels per day in 2020, from 9.2 million in 2012, overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia and becoming the world’s largest oil producer. Over the same period, Saudi Arabia production levels are expected to decline from 11.7 million barrels to 10.6 million. Russia will also product less oil, falling from 10.7 million to 10.4 million barrels per day.

With a shale revolution and energy renaissance underway in the United States, there’s reason to be optimistic. Achieving energy independence appears to be within our grasp. Still, despite the prospect of becoming an energy independent nation, potential roadblocks loom.

In May, at the 2014 Williston Basin Petroleum Conference, Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources told convention attendees that “we can’t have any more issues.” He also said “It has to be done in an absolute, safe manner. It’s going to take all of us.” He was referring to recent problems related to Bakken crude including pipeline ruptures and the fiery train derailment near Casselton, North Dakota this past December.

There’s a lot at stake. Companies like Continental Resources and others, are expected to invest billions in the years ahead to fully develop plays like the Bakken. Drillers are keenly aware that it’s their game to lose. Hamm stressed, “If we have anything, they’re going to shut us down. So many people want to stop fossil fuel use and production.”

Despite the positive macroeconomic effects rising domestic oil production and decreased imports have on the U.S. economy, job creation and economic growth alone won’t guarantee that shale oil production will continue, unless it is deemed safe and not a threat to public safety during transportation of Bakken crude in particular.

Volatility levels of Bakken crude and implication on public safety, continues to be heavily debated. The Lac-Megantic, Quebec, rail tragedy, where 47 people lost their lives when a runaway train carrying tanker cars filled with Bakken formation crude, derailed and exploded in the heart of town has been at the center of that debate. The explosions were so intense, that approximately one-half of the downtown area was destroyed.

Understandably, safely transporting Bakken crude by rail throughout North America, knowing freight rail routes frequently pass through residential areas on their way to final destinations, is a top industry priority. Much of the focus has been and remains on the DOT-111 tank car. On July 23 the U.S. Department of Transportation announced comprehensive proposed rulemaking for the safe transportation of crude oil and flammable materials, with Bakken crude being mentioned – in the form of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and a companion Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

The NPRM language includes “enhanced tank car standards, a classification and testing program for mined gases and liquids and new operational requirements for high-hazard flammable trains that includes braking controls and speed restrictions.” Within two years, it proposes to “phase out of the older DOT-111 tank cars for the shipment of flammable liquids including Bakken crude oil, unless the tank cars are retrofitted to comply with new tank car design standards.” It also seeks “Better classification and characterization of mined gases and liquids.”

The North Dakota Public Service Commission has set a special hearing for September 23rd, as a part of the discussion on the volatility of Bakken crude and potential oil conditioning requirements necessary to safely transport oil from the Williston Basin. Reducing the light hydrocarbons present in Bakken crude would not only provide greater safety, but the standardization of Bakken crude into a class of oil much like West Texas Intermediate, possibly creating premium pricing opportunities.

NDPSC involvement and recommendations in addition to oil conditioning include heightened rail inspection efforts at the state level in addition to the Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration, and emergency response training. Working closely with federal officials and a heightened inspection process, will require additional resources moving forward.

Expanding pipeline capacity and reducing reliance on rail to transport Bakken crude will continue to be a growing need, playing a role in addressing public safety concerns. The North Dakota pipeline authority anticipates two new pipelines coming online before the end of 2016, with capacity for 545,000 barrels a day. Another third proposed pipeline, capable of handling an additional 200,000 barrels, could potentially be in operation by late 2016 or early 2017.

With daily production expected to reach 1.5 million barrels in 2017, and 1.7 million barrels in early 2020, diversifying how Bakken crude is moved to market will be necessary not only from a public safety standpoint, but in order to address logistically challenges that continue to surface as production levels increase.

Extracting domestic oil and gas, moving it to market and properly disposing of or using byproducts created during the production process in a safe and efficient manner will be necessary in order for plays like the Bakken to be fully capitalized on. Those opposed to fossil fuel production will continue to watch and patiently wait for any opportunity to pressure elected officials and sway public opinion.

Ensuring both public and environmental safety to ensure the future of domestic oil production – will require a cooperative effort on the part of both industry and the state. As Harold Hamm alludes to, it truly is industries game to lose.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Oil stabilization, Volatile gases

U.S. Mayors: oil trains must be drained of explosive gas

Repost from Reuters
[Editor: see also Safety of Citizens in Bomb Train Blast Zones in Hands of North Dakota Politicians and North Dakota seizes initiative in CBR degasification. – RS]

U.S. oil trains must be drained of explosive gas, mayors say

By Patrick Rucker. WASHINGTON, Sep 16, 2014

(Reuters) – Dangerous gas should be removed from oil train shipments to prevent a future disaster on the tracks, U.S. mayors and safety officials will tell regulators in comments on a sweeping federal safety plan.

The Department of Transportation in July proposed measures meant to end a string of fiery accidents as more trains carrying oil from North Dakota wind across the United States.

Tank cars carrying flammable cargoes would be toughened and forced to move at slower speeds under the plan. But critics say the failure to address vapor pressure, a measure of how much volatile gas is contained in the crude, is a major omission, and intend to drive their point home.

“That’s an oversight we’re going to push them to fix,” Elizabeth Harman, an official with the International Association of Fire Fighters, told Reuters.

Responses to the DOT’s plan are due by Sept. 30, and so far more than 100 comments have been received. Typically in a contentious rulemaking major stakeholders submit their views just before the deadline.

U.S. officials have studied vapor pressure since July 2013, when a runaway oil train derailed in the Quebec village of Lac-Megantic, killing 47 people in a fireball that shocked many with its explosive power.

Until recently, official findings on vapor pressure were in line with industry-funded studies: That the North Dakota fuel is similar to other U.S. light crude oil deemed safe to move in standard tank cars.

But the DOT said last week that it did not properly handle prior samples and that a precision device, a floating piston cylinder, is needed to reliably detect vapor pressure dangers.

Given that disclaimer, many officials simply want dangerous gas removed from crude oil before it is loaded onto rail cars.

“The technology exists so it boils down to costs,” said Mike Webb, a spokesman for Davis, California, who expects nearby cities will join a call for safer handling of Bakken crude from North Dakota.

Under one scenario, energy companies would siphon gas from crude oil and send the fuel to market via different channels. But building such infrastructure, like separators or processing towers, could cost billions of dollars.

The North Dakota Petroleum Council has sampled some Bakken fuel using a floating piston cylinder and the results have been inconclusive, said Kari Cutting, vice president for the trade group.

“But nothing we’ve seen supports the idea that Bakken crude is more volatile than other light crude oils or other flammable liquids,” said Cutting.

But leaders of many railside towns say uncertainty demands the fuel only move under the most stringent safety measures.

“There is a way to haul dangerous cargo safely and that means using state-of-the-art tools,” said Karen Darch, mayor of the Chicago suburb of Barrington, where fuel-laden freight trains cross commuter tracks as many as 20 times a day.

North Dakota officials will next week hold a hearing to consider measures to de-gasify crude oil in the state.

(Reporting by Patrick Rucker, editing by Ros Krasny and Cynthia Osterman)
Bakken Crude, Blast zone, Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Oil stabilization, State regulation

Safety of Citizens in Bomb Train Blast Zones in Hands of North Dakota Politicians

Repost from Desmogblog

Safety of Citizens in Bomb Train Blast Zones in Hands of North Dakota Politicians

2014-09-05, Justin Mikulka
Lac Megantic train explosion
Lac Megantic train explosion

When North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer was asked recently if it was scientifically possible to make Bakken crude oil safer by stripping out the explosive natural gas liquids with a process like oil stabilization, his response was quite telling.

“So scientifically can you do it? Sure, but you have to look at it holistically and consider all of the other elements including economics, and is the benefit of doing something like that does that trump other things like speed of trains, and what kind of cars,” he said.

This is very similar to the comments made by Lynn Helms of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources according to the July 29 meeting minutes provided to DeSmogBlog by the Industrial Commission of North Dakota.

“In response to a question regarding other mechanisms besides oil conditioning in the field, Mr. Helms stated there are other mechanisms — none of them without a significant downside….It makes sense to do the conditioning in the field. There are other options to do it downstream somewhere in a very large and very expensive operation.”

In a June 24 e-mail obtained by DeSmogBlog through a freedom of information request, Helms identified himself as “the primary contact for Governor Dalrymple’s team on the crude safety issue” in response to an inquiry from the Department of Energy about who would be working on the issue of Bakken crude oil safety.

As the point person on this issue for North Dakota, Helms’ opinions carry significant weight. And just like Congressman Cramer, Helms is pointing out the “significant downside” of stabilization, which is that it is an expensive operation.

It is well established that stabilization works and would make oil trains much safer. Not even North Dakota politicians are arguing that point anymore. But the industry doesn’t want to pay for it. And right now, the only ones who could mandate them to stabilize the oil via new regulations are the three members of the Industrial Commission of North Dakota.

What About The Feds’ Oil-By-Rail Regulations?

The reason North Dakota politicians are discussing this issue at all is because the federal government has essentially punted the question.

In the 200 pages of new proposed oil-by-rail regulations released in July, there is not a single line about requiring the oil or rail companies to stabilize the oil prior to shipping.

Stabilization is a process that removes the explosive natural gas liquids from the oil and is required by pipeline companies. This process would turn the current Bakken “bomb trains” into simple oil trains. They would still pose a threat of oil spills, but would no longer threaten to kill people in massive explosions like the one in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, or be a target for terrorism.

While the proposed regulations don’t require stabiliazation, they do include three questions that indicate lawmakers are aware that stabilizing or “degassifying” the crude makes it safer and that producers have the ability to reduce the volatility of crude oil prior to shipping it by rail.

Is the current exception for combustible liquids sufficient to incentivize producers to reduce the volatility of crude oil for continued use of existing tank cars?

Would an exception for all PG III flammable liquids further incentivize producers to reduce the volatility of crude oil prior to transportation?

What are the impacts on the costs and safety benefits of degasifying to these levels?

As previously reported by DeSmogBlog, the regulators in charge of finalizing the new proposed oil-by-rail regulations are big believers in cost-benefit analysis. And looking at their questions, it is clear they know the oil can be made less volatile. But they want to hear more from the industry about the costs of doing this before doing anything. And instead of requiring stabilization, they are looking for ways to “incentivize” the producers to do it.

Oil Conditioning vs. Oil Stabilization

The North Dakota Industrial Commission is holding a hearing on September 23rd during which it is requesting input on how to make the Bakken crude oil safer for transport. The headline of its press release, “Hearing set on oil conditioning practices,” almost ensures that oil stabilization will never be required in North Dakota.

Oil conditioning is not the same as oil stabilization. Oil conditioning can be done with all of the existing equipment already in the field in North Dakota and thus the cost is minimal. However, in situations where the industry needs to ensure it strips out all the volatile natural gas liquids from the oil, as in the Eagle Ford formation in Texas, they use a different process called stabilization.

Helms and the members of the Industrial Commission like to cite the North Dakota Petroleum Council Study on Bakken Crude Properties when claiming that Bakken crude is no different than other crude oils and thus doesn’t require stabilization. However, that very report makes it clear that conditioning, done with the equipment currently available, is insufficient and was never designed to achieve the type of results expected from stabilization.

From the report, prepared by industry consultant Turner and Mason:

The data consistency [sic] indicates that field equipment is limited in its ability to significantly impact vapor pressure and light ends content.

This is consistent with the expected capabilities of the equipment.

The field equipment is designed to separate gas, remove water and break emulsions to prepare crude for transport, and not remove significant levels of dissolved light ends from the crude.

Meanwhile, at the August 26 meeting of the North Dakota Industrial Commission, Helms once again acknowledged the effectiveness of stabilization, as reported by Petroleum News: “This is very routinely done with high gravity condensate — oil that condenses out of a gas well as it is produced,” Helms said. “That has to be stabilized before it can move through the system.”

Helms word choice is telling. Oil that “has to be stabilized before it can move through the system.” Oil that is moved by pipeline has to be stabilized before it can be moved because pipeline companies require it. The rail companies do not.

Despite his acknowledgement of how stabilization is routine in the pipeline business, at the August meeting, Helms was also sure to point out that in North Dakota they expected to choose conditioning as their solution, as reported by Petroleum News.

Helms agreed, saying conditioning is likely more suitable for North Dakota since the equipment is already in place on well sites but he’d like to hear from others at the upcoming hearing.

“We haven’t closed the door to (stabilization),” Helms said. “We want to hear what people have to say.”

However, if the North Dakota Industrial Commission actually wanted to hear what people have to say about stabilization, the press release about the September 23rd hearing probably should have actually mentioned stabilization. It doesn’t.

The North Dakota Industrial Commission

If there is going to be any regulation requiring stabilization of the Bakken crude it will require the three members of the North Dakota Industrial Commission to make it happen.

Governor Jack Dalrymple is one member of the commission. And his point man on this issue, Helms, has already made it clear he supports conditioning over stabilization.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem is another member. When a report by the Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Administration recently concluded that Bakken oil was more flammable than most other crude oils, Stenehjem responded to the science by saying, “It seems like they are picking on us.”

The third member of the commission is Agricultural Commissioner Doug Goehring. At the August 26th meeting of the commission, Petroleum News reported that Goehring opposed stabilization for an unlikely reason for someone who helped oversee the massive expansion of the Bakken oil production.

Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring voiced his concern with dotting the landscape with stabilizer units.

“We’ve been trying hard to shrink that footprint out there on the landscape, and that’s going to make that awfully difficult.”

So in all likelihood, stabilization is off the table and conditioning will be the new regulation. Helms and others often say conditioning is already being done because the equipment is already in the field. Yet, according to the minutes from the July meeting of the Industrial Commission, Governor Dalrymple said: “Right now we are assuming producers are doing conditioning but we do not have a mechanism to verify that.”

So, let’s get this straight. It is more than a year after the explosion of a Bakken crude train in Lac-Megantic that killed 47 people. And it’s been more than eight months since a train of Bakken crude exploded in Casselton, ND. And the best the regulators can do is hold a hearing to talk about how to do regulate a practice that’s inadequate and they already assume is being done?

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Degasification, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Oil stabilization, State regulation, Volatility

MUST-READ: North Dakota seizes initiative in CBR degasification

Repost from Railway Age

North Dakota seizes initiative in CBR degasification

By  David Thomas, Sept. 4, 2014
North Dakota seizes initiative in CBR degasification

The vital other shoe in crude by rail reform will drop not in Ottawa or Washington, but in Bismark, N.Dak., where, in the void created by federal inaction, officials are preparing to use state jurisdiction over natural resources to order the degasification of petroleum at the wellhead.

The initiative follows months of opaque pronouncements by federal regulators in both Canada and the U.S. with respect to the need to render volatile crude oil safe before transport by rail.

A spokesman for Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) told Railway Age that rules for the pre-loading treatment of crude oil for shipment by rail are not on its reform agenda, despite earlier, apparently overly enthusiastic, pronouncements.

While Transport Canada and the U.S. Department of Transportation have responded to the succession of oil train explosions this year and last by focusing on railroad operations, hazmat classification, and tank car design, some have been muddled on the need to treat the volatile cargo itself before its loading into railcars—this despite their own warnings that crude, fracked from the mid-continent Baaken shale formation, has the explosivity of gasoline.

Some oil producers and shippers have resisted any new regulatory requirement that they process crude for transport by rail the way they already must for delivery by pipeline.

Removal of toxic, explosive, and corrosive gases from crude for transport by pipeline has been required for years under the regulatory authority of the PHMSA. But neither PHMSA nor its DOT sibling Federal Railroad Administration have seen fit to require similar treatment—variously termed “degasification”, “conditioning”, “stabilization”, or “normalization”—for crude, destined for shipment by rail.

Crude shippers have complained since the first oil train calamity in July 2013 at Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, that PHMSA regulations for testing and classifying oil for transport by rail were imprecise. Such confusion is only augmented by PHSMA’s twice-stated reference to a purported “requirement” that dangerous gases be removed before crude is loaded into railcars.

The most recent such PHMSA pronouncement in a June 11, 2014 letter to the National Transportation Safety Board reiterated an earlier safety alert:

“On Jan. 2, 2014, PHMSA also issued a safety alert warning of the flammability of the crude oil extracted from the Bakken Shale region in the United States. PHMSA noted that the alert reinforces the requirement to properly test, characterize, classify, and where appropriate, sufficiently degasify hazardous materials prior to transportation.”

Railway Age asked the PHMSA media relations office to clarify the requirement to “degasify,” and to cite the underlying legislative or regulatory authority. A PHMSA spokesperson researched the inquiry and responded that there was in fact no such legal basis in existence or under formal consideration. The PHMSA spokesman referred us to North Dakota, which was contemplating the introduction of compulsory degasification.

Indeed, the oil and gas division of the North Dakota Industrial Commission has announced a public hearing for Sept. 23, on the “oil conditioning practices” in the state’s three light-oil pools: Bakken, Three Forks, and Sanich. Oil producers are invited to propose “methods to effectively reduce the light hydrocarbons in crude oil.”

Division spokesperson Alison Ritter told Railway Age, “The hearing is a first step in conditioning the oil to make it as safe as possible for transport.” She said that gas/liquid separators are already required at all North Dakota wellheads. At issue is whether they are being effectively used to render so-called “hot crude” safe for rail transport.

Separators boil off light hydrocarbons such as ethane, butane, and propane from crude oil, reducing its vapor pressure and propensity to explode. Heavy and corrosive hydrogen sulfide is also removed for pipeline transport. None of this is compulsory for shipment by rail.

North Dakota had been an uncritical booster of CBR even after Lac-Mégantic, until the fourth of the conflagrations occurred Dec. 30, 2013, on the outskirts of Casselton, when a westbound BNSF grain train derailed in the path of an eastbound BNSF oil train.

North Dakota is also proceeding with the training and deployment of its own rail inspectors, who will enforce FRA and PHSMA regulations within the state.